Biosimilars: Challenges and path forward

Development of biosimilar proteins is the fastest growing sector in the biopharmaceutical industry, as patents for the top 10 best-selling biologics will expire within one decade. The world’s first biosimilar of infliximab, Remsima® (CT-P13) made by Celltrion, was approved by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of European Medicine Agency (EMA) in June 2013. This has ignited competition between related companies for prior occupation of the global market on blockbuster biologics. However, to achieve approval for biosimilars, developing companies face many hurdles in process development, manufacturing, analysis, clinical trials, and CMC (chemical, manufacturing and controls) documentation. Recent evolutionary progress in science, engineering, and process technology throughout the biopharmaceutical industry supports to show similarity between originator and biosimilar products. The totality of evidence has been able to demonstrate the quality, efficacy, and safety of biosimilars whereas a lack of interchangeability and international standards has to be addressed. Further understanding of the timing importance by regulatory agencies will be key to maximizing the value of biosimilars.     

Worldwide experience with biosimilar development

Limited access for high-quality biologics due to cost of treatment constitutes an unmet medical need in the United States (US) and other regions of the world. The term “biosimilar” is used to designate a follow-on biologic that meets extremely high standards for comparability or similarity to the originator biologic drug that is approved for use in the same indications. Use of biosimilar products has already decreased the cost of treatment in many regions of the world, and now a regulatory pathway for approval of these products has been established in the US. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led the world with the regulatory concept of comparability, and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) was the first to apply this to biosimilars. Patents on the more complex biologics, especially monoclonal antibodies, are now beginning to expire and biosimilar versions of these important medicines are in development. The new Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act allows the FDA to approve biosimilars, but it also allows the FDA to lead on the formal designation of interchangeability of biosimilars with their reference products. The FDA’s approval of biosimilars is critical to facilitating patient access to high-quality biologic medicines, and will allow society to afford the truly innovative molecules currently in the global biopharmaceutical industry’s pipeline.     

Bioanalytical strategy used in development of pharmacokinetic (PK) methods that support biosimilar programs

The development of biosimilar products is expected to grow rapidly over the next five years as a large number of approved biologics reach patent expiry. The pathway to regulatory approval requires that similarity of the biosimilar to the reference product be demonstrated through physiochemical and structural characterization, as well as within in vivo studies that compare the safety and efficacy profiles of the products. To support nonclinical and clinical studies pharmacokinetic (PK) assays are required to measure the biosimilar and reference products with comparable precision and accuracy. The most optimal approach is to develop a single PK assay, using a single analytical standard, for quantitative measurement of the biosimilar and reference products in serum matrix. Use of a single PK assay for quantification of multiple products requires a scientifically sound testing strategy to evaluate bioanalytical comparability of the test products within the method, and provide a solid data package to support the conclusions. To meet these objectives, a comprehensive approach with scientific rigor was applied to the development and characterization of PK assays that are used in support of biosimilar programs. Herein we describe the bioanalytical strategy and testing paradigm that has been used across several programs to determine bioanalytical comparability of the biosimilar and reference products. Data from one program is presented, with statistical results demonstrating the biosimilar and reference products were bioanalytically equivalent within the method. The cumulative work has established a framework for future biosimilar PK assay development.     

Bioanalytical strategy used in development of pharmacokinetic (PK) methods that support biosimilar programs

The development of biosimilar products is expected to grow rapidly over the next five years as a large number of approved biologics reach patent expiry. The pathway to regulatory approval requires that similarity of the biosimilar to the reference product be demonstrated through physiochemical and structural characterization, as well as within in vivo studies that compare the safety and efficacy profiles of the products. To support nonclinical and clinical studies pharmacokinetic (PK) assays are required to measure the biosimilar and reference products with comparable precision and accuracy. The most optimal approach is to develop a single PK assay, using a single analytical standard, for quantitative measurement of the biosimilar and reference products in serum matrix. Use of a single PK assay for quantification of multiple products requires a scientifically sound testing strategy to evaluate bioanalytical comparability of the test products within the method, and provide a solid data package to support the conclusions. To meet these objectives, a comprehensive approach with scientific rigor was applied to the development and characterization of PK assays that are used in support of biosimilar programs. Herein we describe the bioanalytical strategy and testing paradigm that has been used across several programs to determine bioanalytical comparability of the biosimilar and reference products. Data from one program is presented, with statistical results demonstrating the biosimilar and reference products were bioanalytically equivalent within the method. The cumulative work has established a framework for future biosimilar PK assay development.     

Quality, safety and efficacy of follow-on biologics in Japan

Recently, WHO, EU, Japan and Canada have published guidelines on biosimilar/follow-on biologics. While there seems to be no significant difference in the general concept in these guidelines, the data to be submitted for product approval are partially different. Differences have been noted in the requirements for comparability studies on stability, prerequisites for reference product, or for the need of comparability exercise for determination of process-related impurities. In Japan, there have been many discussions about the amount and extent of data for approval of follow-on biologics. We try to clarify the scientific background and rational for regulatory pathway of biosimilar/follow-on biologics in Japan in comparison with the guidelines available from WHO, EU and Canada. In this article, we address and discuss the scientific background underlying these differences to facilitate the harmonization of follow-on biologic principles in the guidelines in future.     

Worldwide experience with biosimilar development

Limited access for high-quality biologics due to cost of treatment constitutes an unmet medical need in the US and other regions of the world. The term “biosimilar” is used to designate a follow-on biologic that meets extremely high standards for comparability or similarity to the originator biologic drug that is approved for use in the same indications. Use of biosimilar products has already decreased the cost of treatment in many regions of the world and now a regulatory pathway for approval of these products has been established in the US. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) led the world with the regulatory concept of comparability and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) was the first to apply this to biosimilars. Patents on the more complex biologics, especially monoclonal antibodies, are now beginning to expire and biosimilar versions of these important medicines are in development. The new Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) allows the FDA to approve biosimilars and allows the FDA to lead on the formal designation of interchangeability of biosimilars with their reference products. The FDA''s approval of biosimilars is critical to facilitating patient access to high-quality biologic medicines and will allow society to afford the truly innovative molecules currently in the global biopharmaceutical industry''s pipeline.Key words: monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), biosimilars, recombinant biopharmaceuticals     

Biosimilars: a regulatory perspective from America

Biosimilars are protein products that are sufficiently similar to a biopharmaceutical already approved by a regulatory agency. Several biotechnology companies and generic drug manufacturers in Asia and Europe are developing biosimilars of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and rituximab. A biosimilar etanercept is already being marketed in Colombia and China. In the US, several natural source products and recombinant proteins have been approved as generic drugs under Section 505(b)(2) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. However, because the complexity of large biopharmaceuticals makes it difficult to demonstrate that a biosimilar is structurally identical to an already approved biopharmaceutical, this Act does not apply to biosimilars of large biopharmaceuticals. Section 7002 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, which is referred to as the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, amends Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act to create an abbreviated pathway that permits a biosimilar to be evaluated by comparing it with only a single reference biological product. This paper reviews the processes for approval of biosimilars in the US and the European Union and highlights recent changes in federal regulations governing the approval of biosimilars in the US.     

Experience of reviewing the follow-on biologics including Somatropin and erythropoietin in Japan

To share the experience of reviewing clinical data required for the licensing of follow-on biologic products (biosimilar products and similar biotherapeutical products as EU and WHO terminology, respectively) in Japan, the data packages of two follow-on biologics, "Somatropin BS s.c. [Sandoz] (Omnitrope?)" and "Epoetin alfa BS [JCR]", which have been recently approved in Japan according to the "Guidelines for the Quality, Safety and Efficacy Assurance of Follow-on Biologics" published on March 4th 2009, are described. The clinical data package and indication of Somatropin BS/Omnitrope(?) were different in each country. In case of Epoetin alfa BS [JCR], non-clinical and clinical data-package was different from those of erythropoietin biosimilar products approved in EU. Submission of post-marketing surveillance plans for both products was required. Even though there seem to be differences in data requirements by each national regulatory authority, the accumulation of experience will provide the rationale and consensus on how to design the clinical trials for follow-on biologics.     

Continuous integrated manufacturing for biopharmaceuticals: A new paradigm or an empty promise?

Continuous integrated bioprocessing has elicited considerable interest from the biopharma industry for the many purported benefits it promises. Today many major biopharma manufacturers around the world are engaged in the development of continuous process platforms for their products. In spite of great potential, the path toward continuous integrated bioprocessing remains unclear for the biologics industry due to legacy infrastructure, process integration challenges, vague regulatory guidelines, and a diverging focus toward novel therapies. In this article, we present a review and perspective on this topic. We explore the status of the implementation of continuous integrated bioprocessing among biopharmaceutical manufacturers. We also present some of the key hurdles that manufacturers are likely to face during this implementation. Finally, we hypothesize that the real impact of continuous manufacturing is likely to come when the cost of manufacturing is a substantial portion of the cost of product development, such as in the case of biosimilar manufacturing and emerging economies.     

Regulatory considerations in oncologic biosimilar drug development

Biosimilar monoclonal antibodies are being developed globally for patients with different types of solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. Applications for proposed biosimilar monoclonal antibodies are being submitted to the regulatory authorities around the world and may increase patient access to key treatment options upon approval. An understanding among stakeholders (e.g., physicians, patients and their caregivers, pharmacists, payers) of the approval criteria, as well as the similarities and differences in regulatory pathways involved in biosimilar approval in different countries, as presented in this review, will facilitate identification of high-quality, safe, monoclonal antibodies that have been developed according to strict, biosimilar regulatory standards. Further guidance and resolution of the ongoing discussions on biosimilar labeling, naming, automatic substitution, and indication extrapolation may ensure, in the future, an effective and appropriate use of biosimilar monoclonal antibodies by oncologists and other stakeholders in daily clinical practice.     

Current perspectives on biosimilars

In this work, an overview of the biosimilars market, pipeline and industry targets is discussed. Biosimilars typically have a shorter timeline for approval (8 years) compared to 12 years for innovator drugs and the development cost can be 10–20% of the innovator drug. The biosimilar pipeline is reviewed as well as the quality management system (QMS) that is needed to generate traceable, trackable data sets. One difference between developing a biosimilar compared to an originator is that a broader analytical foundation is required for biosimilars and advances made in developing analytical similarity to characterize these products are discussed. An example is presented on the decisions and considerations explored in the development of a biosimilar and includes identification of the best process parameters and methods based on cost, time, and titer. Finally factors to consider in the manufacture of a biosimilar and approaches used to achieve the target-directed development of a biosimilar are discussed.

     

When biotech proteins go off-patent

The patents of the first generation of biopharmaceuticals derived from recombinant DNA such as interferons, growth hormone and epoietins are expiring, opening up the possibility for competitors to introduce biosimilar products. The concept of generics that applies to classical drugs and allows market admission on limited documentation cannot be extrapolated to these "off-patent biologics". Physicochemical characterization, bioassays and animals studies do not predict completely the efficacy and safety of therapeutic proteins. Clinical studies will nearly always be necessary to obtain marketing authorization for off-patent biologics. Immunogenicity is considered to be the main problem with therapeutic proteins. The recent upsurge of pure red cell aplasia (PRCA), a severe form of anemia associated with the use of epoietin-alpha, highlights both the unpredictability and the severe consequences of immunogenicity. A risk-based approach can be used to evaluate the potential induction of antibodies by off-patent biologics.     

Biosimilars in oncology and inflammatory diseases: current and future considerations for clinicians in Latin America

Biological therapies have revolutionized the treatment of several cancers and systemic immune-mediated inflammatory conditions. Expiry of patents protecting a number of biologics has provided the opportunity to commercialize highly similar versions, known as biosimilars. Biosimilars are approved by regulatory agencies via an independent pathway that requires extensive head-to-head comparison with the originator product. Biosimilars have the potential to provide savings to healthcare systems and expand patient access to biologics. In Latin American countries, regulatory frameworks for biosimilar approval have been introduced in recent years, and biosimilars of monoclonal antibody and fusion protein therapies are now emerging. However, the situation in this region is complicated by the presence of “non-comparable biotherapeutics” (also known as “intended copies”), which have not been rigorously compared with the originator product. We review the considerations for clinicians in Latin American countries, focusing on monoclonal antibody biosimilars relevant to oncology, rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology.     

Biosimilars and New Insulin Versions

Objective: To provide clinicians with an overview of similar biologic products including biosimilars and new insulin versions available in the U.S. and of key issues associated with such products, including differences in manufacturing and regulatory approaches and their impact on clinical use.Methods: We reviewed the relevant clinical and regulatory literature.Results: Patent protections for many biologics including several insulin preparations have or will expire shortly. This opens the door for new insulin versions to enter the U.S. and global marketplace. The development, manufacturing, and approval process for similar biologic products is more complex than for generic versions of small molecules. Most similar biologic products in the U.S. will be submitted for approval under section 351(k), a newly created biosimilar regulatory pathway. However, some biologics, including new insulin versions, will be submitted via the existing 505(b) regulatory pathway. These regulatory pathways have implications for how such products may be labeled, how they may be dispensed, and how patients may perceive them. The immunogenicity of biologics can affect safety and efficacy and can be altered through subtle changes in manufacturing. With the arrival of new insulin versions, health care providers will need to understand the implications of interchangeability, therapeutic equivalence, substitution, switching, and new delivery devices.Conclusion: An understanding of the above topics will be important as physicians, payers, and patients choose between similar versions of a reference listed biologic product.Abbreviations:BLA = biologics license applicationBPCIA = Biologics Price Competition and Innovation ActEU = European UnionFDA = Food and Drug AdministrationINN = international nonproprietary nameNDA = new drug applicationPD = pharmacodynamicPK = pharmacokineticPRCA = pure red cell aplasia     

Characterization and comparison of commercially available TNF receptor 2-Fc fusion protein products

Because of rapidly increasing market demand and rising cost pressure, the innovator of etanercept (Enbrel®) will inevitably face competition from biosimilar versions of the product. In this study, to elucidate the differences between the reference etanercept and its biosimilars, we characterized and compared the quality attributes of two commercially available, biosimilar TNF receptor 2-Fc fusion protein products. Biosimilar 1 showed high similarity to Enbrel® in critical quality attributes including peptide mapping, intact mass, charge variant, purity, glycosylation and bioactivity. In contrast, the intact mass and MS/MS analysis of biosimilar 2 revealed a mass difference indicative of a two amino acid residue variance in the heavy chain (Fc) sequences. Comprehensive glycosylation profiling confirmed that biosimilar 2 has significantly low sialylated N-oligosaccharides. Biosimilar 2 also displayed significant differences in charge attributes compared with the reference product. Interestingly, biosimilar 2 exhibited similar affinity and bioactivity levels compared with the reference product despite the obvious difference in primary structure and partial physiochemical properties. For a biosimilar development program, comparative analytical data can influence decisions about the type and amount of animal and clinical data needed to demonstrate biosimilarity. Because of the limited clinical experience with biosimilars at the time of their approval, a thorough knowledge surrounding biosimilars and a case-by-case approach are needed to ensure the appropriate use of these products.     

Characterization and comparison of commercially available TNF receptor 2-Fc fusion protein products

Because of rapidly increasing market demand and rising cost pressure, the innovator of etanercept (Enbrel®) will inevitably face competition from biosimilar versions of the product. In this study, to elucidate the differences between the reference etanercept and its biosimilars, we characterized and compared the quality attributes of two commercially available, biosimilar TNF receptor 2-Fc fusion protein products. Biosimilar 1 showed high similarity to Enbrel® in critical quality attributes including peptide mapping, intact mass, charge variant, purity, glycosylation and bioactivity. In contrast, the intact mass and MS/MS analysis of biosimilar 2 revealed a mass difference indicative of a two amino acid residue variance in the heavy chain (Fc) sequences. Comprehensive glycosylation profiling confirmed that biosimilar 2 has significantly low sialylated N-oligosaccharides. Biosimilar 2 also displayed significant differences in charge attributes compared with the reference product. Interestingly, biosimilar 2 exhibited similar affinity and bioactivity levels compared with the reference product despite the obvious difference in primary structure and partial physiochemical properties. For a biosimilar development program, comparative analytical data can influence decisions about the type and amount of animal and clinical data needed to demonstrate biosimilarity. Because of the limited clinical experience with biosimilars at the time of their approval, a thorough knowledge surrounding biosimilars and a case-by-case approach are needed to ensure the appropriate use of these products.     

Regulatory considerations for marker vaccines and diagnostic tests in the U.S.

Marker vaccines and diagnostic tests can prove to be invaluable in disease eradication and control programs, as was found in the pseudorabies (Aujeszky's Disease) virus eradication program in the U.S. During that campaign, numerous gene-deleted vaccines and companion diagnostic test kits were used to differentiate infected animals from vaccinated animals, in a strategy that ultimately led to eradication of the disease in commercial swine herds. The United States Department of Agriculture played a key role in delivery of that success by developing biologics policy, evaluating each product, and ensuring that the conditions of licensure were met. What was most critical in the overall eradication effort, however, was the detailed and dedicated interaction among key players: the biologics regulators, manufacturers, Federal, State, and local regulatory partners, veterinary researchers, industry associations, and animal owners. A good disease control program has to include all of these. The regulatory requirements for licensure of marker vaccines and diagnostic test kits are not different from that for other products. There are several mechanisms for vaccine approval, some more rapid than others, but only a few that could apply to these products. Generally, the platforms that might support marker vaccines and companion diagnostic kits are those based on genetic engineering or protein manipulation. If the product is derived from the application of biotechnology, then additional regulatory considerations are applicable. Most important of these are the considerations found in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), wherein deliberate release of any organism containing recombinant DNA into the environment is subject to review and approval by appropriate federal agencies. Environmental release and NEPA compliance are discussed.     

Evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs): scientific principles and their implementation

The availability of biotherapeutic products to patients has a major impact on the success in treating many life-threatening and chronic diseases. These products are often derived by recombinant DNA technology and are expensive for the majority of patients who need them most. Increasing numbers of patents/data protection are now expiring and biologicals "similar" to the originators (innovative products) are coming to the market. This process is seen as a mechanism for increasing the access to biotherapeutic products which are very much needed for the treatment of chronic diseases worldwide. The emergence of Similar Biological Products (SBPs) has created numerous challenges in developing, licensing, and using these important products. From a public health perspective, the overall expectation is that similar products will be available at an affordable price and will increase patients' access to the therapy. In response to the requests for assistance in defining regulatory requirements for SBPs, the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS) adopted the new WHO Guidelines for evaluation of SBPs in October 2009. This article provides a brief account of the WHO initiative to assist its member states to establish national requirements for the regulatory oversight of SBPs. The aim of the article is to inform its readers of the current status of WHO Guidelines on the evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products and of the plan to strengthen national regulatory requirements to assure quality, safety and efficacy of similar biotherapeutic products at the global level.     

The challenge of indication extrapolation for infliximab biosimilars

A biosimilar is intended to be highly similar to a reference biologic such that any differences in quality attributes (i.e., molecular characteristics) do not affect safety or efficacy. Achieving this benchmark for biologics, especially large glycoproteins such as monoclonal antibodies, is challenging given their complex structure and manufacturing. Regulatory guidance on biosimilars issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Health Canada and European Medicines Agency indicates that, in addition to a demonstration of a high degree of similarity in quality attributes, a reduced number of nonclinical and clinical comparative studies can be sufficient for approval. Following a tiered approach, clinical studies are required to address concerns about possible clinically significant differences that remain after laboratory and nonclinical evaluations. Consequently, a critical question arises: can clinical studies that satisfy concerns regarding safety and efficacy in one condition support “indication extrapolation” to other conditions? This question will be addressed by reviewing the case of a biosimilar to infliximab that was approved recently in South Korea, Europe, and Canada for multiple indications through extrapolation. The principles discussed should also apply to biosimilars of other monoclonal antibodies that are approved to treat multiple distinct conditions.     

Biosimilars 2.0

In the European Union, biosimilar products have been approved since 2006 under an abbreviated pathway that leverages their similarity to an existing “reference” biological product. The products approved to date are based on recombinant versions of endogenous proteins with well-understood structures and pharmacology, but complicated safety and immunogenicity profiles. The period during the 2000s that included the first reviews, approvals, sale and use of biosimilars, is referred to herein as “Biosimilars 1.0.” Over the next several years, a new and advanced tranche of biosimilars will be developed for complex reference products, including medicines used in the treatment of cancer and autoimmune diseases. A global market for biosimilars is developing, and this may well foreshadow the beginning of the second era of product development. This Biosimilars 2.0 period will likely be characterized by the development of complex products, global harmonization of standards, and the increasing demand for long-term monitoring of pharmaceuticals. The products developed in this period should exhibit high levels of fidelity to the reference products and should be rigorously evaluated in analytical, non-clinical and clinical comparisons. Additionally, Biosimilars 2.0 manufacturers should strive for transparency in their labels and take proactive strides to be accountable to providers and patients for the quality of their products. An important opportunity now exists for the healthcare community, industry and regulators to work in partnership to outline the appropriate standards for these products to facilitate increased access while meeting patients’ needs.